in one place Epist. to the Ephesians and to the Philippians where the Bishop is let the people be gathered to him as where Christ is there is the whole host of heaven He calleth his church of Antioch a Synagogue of God which cannot agree to a Diocesan church For these were particular congregations opposed as to that Nationall church so to all Provinciall and Dâ—ocesan Neither doth he call himselfe Bishop of Syria but as he was Bishop of the congregation in Syria as a Minister stileth himselfe a Minister of the church of England 2 Iustine and Ireneus knew no kinde of church in the world which did not assemble on the Sabboth But a Dâ—ocâ—san church cannot 3 Tertullian Apol. cap 39. doth shew that all churches in his time did meet and did worship God in which prayers readings exhortations and all manner of censures were performed Hee knew no churches which had not power of censures within themselves 4 Churches are said at first to have beene Parishes and Parishes within cities in Eusâ—b lib. 3 44. lib. 4. cap. 21. lib. 2. cap. 6. lib. 4. cap. 25. and Sâ—int Iohn lib 3. cap. 23. â—aith to the Bishop redde juvenem quem tibi ego Christus teste Ecclesia tua tradidimus That church in whose presence Iohn might commit his dep setum or trust was but one congregation lib. 4. cap. 11. Hâ—g nus and Pius are said to have undertaken the Mâ—nistery of the church of Rome which church was such therefore as they might minister unto lib 7.7 Dionisius Alex. writeth to Xistus and the church which he governed A Diocesan church cannot receive letters Before Iulian and Demetrius his time there is no mention of churches in a Bishops parish The church of Alexandria was within the citie lib. 7. cap. 2. Cornelius is said officium Episcopi implevisse in civitate Rome ex Cyp. lib. 1. epist 3 Cornelius Foelicissimum ex Ecclesia pepulit qui cum tamen de provincia pellare ron potuit Vide Ruffinum lib. 1. cap. 6. suburbicarariarum Ecclâ—sirum tantum curam gessâ—t Cyprian was Pastor Paroeciae in Carthagiaee of the Parish in Carthage Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 3. ex verbis Cypriani lib. 1. epist. 4. 5 It is the rule of Scripture that a Bishop should be chosen in sight of his people Bishops were chosen long after by the people As of Rome and others by the people committed to them Cypr. lib. 4. epist. 1. Neighbour Bishops should come to the people over whom a Bishop was to be set and chose the Bishop in presence of the people Schismes were said to be from thence Quod Episcopâ— universa fraternitas non obtemperat Cypr. epist. 55. tota fraternitas i. unius congregationis tota multitudo ex qua componitur Ecclesia particularis Sabino â—le universa fraternitatis suffragâ—o Episcopatus fuit delatus Cypr. lib. 1. epist. 47.58.68 Ecclesiae â—gitur circâ—iâ—us non suit maâ—or quà m ut Episcopuâ— totam plebem suam in negoâ—iis bujusmodi câ—â—vocare potuerit Soc. lib. 7. cap. 3. de Agâ—peto Convocavit omnem clerum populum qui erat intra illius jurisdictionem 6 The Chorepiscopi were Bishops in Villages there is no likelihood of the other notation Their adversaries in opposing them never object that they were as Delegates or Suffragan Bishops to them 7 Bishops were wont to goe forth to confirme all the baptized through the Diocesse 8 They were neighbours and might meet a dozen six three in the cause of a Bishop 9 They were united sometimes in Provinciall Councels in which many Bishops met twice yearly Ruffin lib. 1 cap. 6. Victor Vticensis reporteth in a time when they were fewest in Africa in persecution Vandalica 660. fled to save themselves Austin saith there were innumerable orthodox Bishops in Africa and the Provinciall Councels doe confirme the same Now by reason it is cleare that churches were not Metropolitan or Diocesan 1 That church whose causes are wanting that church is wanting But in a Diocesan church causes are not to be found Ergo. First the efficient cause God ordeyning For none can take on him to be a minister Diocesan no place to be a place where the Assembly Diocesan should be held no people can worship God in repairing to this place and ministery without warrant of his word Ergo. In the Nationall church of the Jewes Aaron and his sonnes tooke not that honour it was given them The place of the Nationall meeting God chose Hierusalem The people he precisely bound to practise some ordinances of worship no where but there and to appeare there before him Secondly the matter of a Diocesan church is people within such a circuit obliged to meet at least on solemne dayes wheresoever the Diocesan Ministers and Ordinances of worship are exercised Pastors who have callings to tend them and minister to them in this Diocesan meeting now assembled Finally the actuall meeting of them to such end as such more solemne and publike meetings are ordained to are no where commanded nor in any fashion were ever by any warrant of the Word practised If any say these are not the causes of a Diocesan Church but an ordinance of God binding persons within such a circuit to subject themselves to such a Church and the ministery thereof that they may be governed by them I answer First there is no ordinance of God for this that can be shewed that Churches within such a circuit should be tyed to a certaine head Church for government Nay it is false For every Church by Christs institution hath power of government and the Synagogue had in ordinary matters the government that the Church of Jerusalem had being all over except onely in some reserved causes Secondly I say that this will not make a Diocesan Church formally so called As a Nationall Church could not formally be without binding the whole Nation to exercise ordinances of worship in the head Church of it So by proportion Yea government is a thing which doth now â—ccidere to a Church constituted and doth not essentially concurre as matter or forme to constitute a Church of this or that kinde Againe were this true that the Diocesan Pastors and Ministers have onely government committed to them then it will follow that they onely have the governing of particular Churches who are not any way Pastors of them ministring Word and Sacraments to them But this is most absurd that their proper and ordinary Pastors who dispence Word and Sacraments to them should not have potestatem peâ—i nothing to doe in governing those flockes which depend on them If any say they were not actu but they were virtute potentiae I say it is also to make the Apostles Churches imperfect and how can this be knowne but by a presumed intention which hath nothing to shew it but that after event of things From the effect I argue 2 Those Churches which Christ did ordaine and the Apostles plant might ordinarily assemble to
upon every occasion are enforced to take such corporall oathes as not one of them doth ever keep What other ground of this beside the fore-mentioned that particular Congregations are no spirituall incorporations and therefore must have no officers for government within themselves Now all these confusions with many others of the same kind how they are condemned in the very foundation of them M. Bains here sheweth in the first question by maintaining the divine constitution of a particular Church in one Congregation In which question he maintaineth against his adversaries a course not unlike to that which Armachanus in the daies of King Edward the third contended for against the begging Fâ—iers in his booke called The defence of Curates For when those Friers incroachâ—d upon the priviledges of Parochiall Ministers he withstood them upon these grounds Ecclesia Parochialis juxta verba Mosis Deut. 12. est locus electus a Deo in quo debemus accipere cuncta quae praecipit Dominus ex Sacramentis Parochus est ordinaritu Parochiani est persona a Deo praecepta vel mandato Dei ad illud ministerium explendum electa which if they be granted our adversaries cause may goe a begging with the foresaid Friers Another sort of corruptions there are which though they depend upon the same ground with the former yet immediately flow out of the Hierarchie What is more dissonant from the revealed will of Christ in the Gospell even also from the state of the Primitive Church tâ—en that the Church and Kingdome of Christ should be managed as the Kingdomes of the world by a Lordly authority with externall pompe commanding power contentious courts of judgâ—ment furnished with chancellors officials commissaries advocates proctors paritors and such like humane devices Yet all this doth necessarily follow upon the admitting of such Bishops as ours are in England who not onely are Lords over the flock but doe professe so much in the highest degree when they tell us plainly that their Lawes or Canons doe binde mens consciences For herein we are like the people of Israel who would not have God for their immediate King but would have such Kings as other Nations Even so the Papists and we after them refuse to have Christâ—an immediate King in the immediate government of the Church but must have Lordly Rulers with state in Ecclesiasticall affaires such as the world hath in civill What a miserable pickle are the most of our Ministers in when they are urged to give an account of their calling To a Papist indeed they can give a shifting answer that they have ordination from Bishops which Bishops were ordained by other Bishops and they or their ordainers by Popish Bishops this in part may stop the mouth of a Papish but let a Protestant which doubteth of these matters move the question and what then will they say If they flie to popish Bishops as they are popish then let them goe no longer masked under the name of Protestants If they alledge succession by them from the Apostles then to say nothing of the appropriating of this succession unto the Popes chaire in whose name and by whose authority oâ—r English Bishops did all things in times past then I say they must take a great time for the satisfying of a poore man concerning this question and for the justifying of their station For untill that out of good records they can shew a perpetuall succession from the Apostles unto their Diocesan which ordained them and untill they can make the poore man which doubteth perceive the truth and certainty of those records which I wissâ— they will doe at leasure they can never make that succession appeare If they flye to the Kings authority the King himseâ—fe will forsake them and deny that he taketh upon him to make or call Ministers If to the present Bishops and Archbishops alas they are as farre to seeke as themselves and much further The proper cause of all this misery is the lifting up of a lordly Prelacy upon the ruines of the Churches liberties How intollerable a bondage is it that a Minister being called to a charge may not preach to his people except he hath a licence from the Bishop or Archbishop Cannot receive the best of his Congregation to communion if he be censured in the spirituall Courts though it be but for not paying of six pence which they required of him in any name be the man otherwise never so innocent nor keep one from the communion that is not presented in those Courts or being presented is for money absolved though he be never so scandalous and must often times if hee will hold his place against his conscience put backe those from communion with Christ whom Christ doth call unto it as good Christians if they will not kneele and receive those that Christ putteth backe at the command of a mortall man What a burthen are poore Ministers pressed with in that many hundreds of them depend upon one Bishop and his Officers they must hurry up to the spirituall Court upon every occasion there to stand with cap in hâ—nd not onely before a Bishop but before his Chancellour to bee railed on many times at his pleasure to be censured suspended deprived for not observing some of those canons which were of purpose framed for snares when far more ancient and honest canons are every day broken by these Iudges themselves for lucre sake as in the making of Vtopian Ministers who have no people to minister unto in their holding of commendams in their taking of money even to extortion for orders and institutions in their symony as well by giving as by taking and in all their idle covetous and ambitious pompe For all these and such like abuses we are beholding to the Lordlinesse of our Hierarchy which in the root of it is here overthrown by M. Bayne in the conclusions of the second and â—hird Question About which he hath the very same controversie that Marsilius Patavinus in part undertooke long since about the time of Edward the second against the Pope For he in his booke called Defensor pacis layeth the same grounds that here are maintained Some of his words though they be large I will here set downe for the Readers information Potestas clavium sive solvendi ligandi est essentialis inseparabilis Presbyterio in quantum Presbyter est In hac authoritate Episcopus à Sacerdote non differt teste Hieronymo imo verius Apostolo cujus etiam est aperta sententia Inquit enim Hieronymus super Mat. 16. Habent quidem eandem judiciariam potestatem alsi Apostoli habet omnes Ecclesia in Presbyteris Episcopis praeponens in hoc Presbyteros quoniam authoritas haec debetur Presbytero in quantum Presbyter primo secundum quod ipsum c. Many things are there discoursed to the same purpose dict 2. c. 15. It were too long to reâ—ite all Yet one thing is worthy to be observed how he interpreteth
a bishop over them in higher degree Answer The Proposition is not true in regard of majority of rule For no Apostle had such power over the meanest Deacon in any of the Churches But to the Assumption we answer by distinction An order is reputed higher either because intrinsecally it hath a higher vertue or because it hath a higher degree of dignity and honour Now wee deny that ever antiquity did take the bishop above his Presbyters to be in a higher order then a Presbyter further then a higher order doth signifie an order of higher dignity and honor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Councell of Sardica speaketh Which is further proved because the fathers did not hold a bishop to differ from a Presbyter as Presbyter from a Deacon For these differ genere proximo Noverint Diaconi se ad ministerium non ad sacerdotum vocaâ—i But a bishop differeth from a Presbyter as from one who hath the power of Priesthood no lesse then himselfe and therefore the difference betwixt thâ—se must be circumstantially not so essentiall as betwixt the other Thus bishops and Archbishops are divers ordâ—rs of bishops not that one exceedeth the other as a power of higher vertue but of higher dignity then then the other More plainely There may be a fourefold difference in gradu 1. in potestate graaus 2. in Exercito 3. in Dignitate 4. in amplitudiâ—e Iurisdictionis The first difference is not betweene a bishop and a Presbyter according to the common tenent of antiquity or the Schoole but only is maintained by such as hold the Character of a Priest and Bishop inwardly diverse one from the other For as a bishop differeth not in power and degree from an Archbishop because nothing an Archbishop can doe as confirming consecrating Bâ—shops c. but a bishop can doe also So neither doth a Presbyter from a bishop Object But the Priest cannot ordaine a Presbyter and confirme as the bâ—shop doth and therefore differeth Potestate gradus To this I answer that these authours meane not thâ—s difference in power de fundamentali rem ta potestate sed ampliata immediata jam actu hor um effictuam productiva as if Presbyters had not a remote and fundamentall power to doe those things but that they have not before they be ordained bishops their power so enlarged as to produce thâ—se effects actually As a boy hath a generative faculty whâ—le he is a child which he hath when he is a man but yet it is not in a child free from all impediment that it can actually beget the like But this is too much to grant For the power sacramentall in the Priest is an actuall power which hee is able to performe and execute nothing defective in regard of them further then they be with-held from the exercise of it For that cause which standeth in compleat actuality to greater more noble effects hath an inferior lesser of the same kind under it also unlesse the application of the matter be intercepted Thus a Presbyter he hath a sacramentall power standing in full actuality to higher sacramentall actions therfore cannot but have these inferior of confirmation and orders in hâ—s power further then they are excepted kept from being applied to him And therefore power sacramentall cannot be in a Presbyter as the generative faculty is in a child for this is inchoate onely and imperfect such as cannot produce that effect The power of the Priest is compleat Secondly I say these are no sacramentall actions Thirdly were they yet as much may be said to prove an Archbishop a distinct order from a bishop as to prove a Presbyter and bishop differing in order For it is proper to him out of power to generate a bishop other bishops laying on hands no otherwise then Presbyters are said to doe where they joine with their bishops If that rule stand not major ad minori nor yet equalie ab equall I marvel how bishops can beget bishops equall yea superior to them as in consecrating the Lord Archbishop yet a Presbyter may not ordaine a Presbyter It doth not stand with their Episcopall majority that the rule every one may give that which he hath should hold here in the exercise of their power Those who are in one order may differ jure divino or humans Aaron differed from the Priests not in power sacramentall for they might all offer incense and make intercession But the solemne intercession in the holy of holies God did except and appropriate to the high Priest the type of Christ. Priests would have reached to this power of intercession in the holy place or any act of like kinde but that God did not permit that this should come under them or they intermeddle in it Thus by humane law the bishop is greater in exercise then the Priest For â—hough God hath not excepted any thing from the one free to the other yet commonly confiâ—mation ordination absolution by imposiâ—g hands in receiving Penitents consecrating Churches and Virines have beene referred to the bâ—shop for the honor of Priesthood rather then any necessiâ—y of law as Ierom speaketh Finally in dignity those may differ many waies who in degree are equall which is granted by our adversaries in this cause Yea they say in amplitude of jurisdiction as in which it is apparant an Archbishop exceedeth aâ—other But were it manifest that God did give bishops Pastorall power through their Diocesse and an Archbishop through his Province though but when hee visiteth this would make one differ in order from the other as in this regard Evangelists deffered from ordinary Pastors But that jurisdiction is in one more then another is not established nor hath apparency in any Scripture To the proofes thereof I answer briefly the one may be a step to the other while they differ in degrees of dignities though essentially they are but one and the same order In this regard it may be sacriledge to reduce one from the greater to the lesser if he have not deserved it As for that of Ierom it is most plaine hee did meane no further order but onely in respect of some dignities wherewith they invested their bishop or first Prebyter as that they did mount him up in a higher seat the rest sitting lower about him and gave him this preheminence to sit first as a Consull in the Senate and moderate the carriage of things amongst them this Celfiori gradu being nothing but his honourable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not importing sole authority For by a Canon of Councell of Laodicea wee finde that the bishop hâ—d this priviledge to sit first though Presbyters did together with him enter and sit as Judges of equall commission For though Deacons stood Presbyters did alwaies sit incircuitu Episcopi 10. Argument If bishops be that whiâ—h Aaron and the Apostles were and Presbyters be that which the Priests and the 72. Disciples were then the one are
or lesse jurisdiction annexed as those are more or lesse honourable in the Common-wealth which have civill authority in lesse or greater measure conjoyned The truth is it cannot be shewed that God ever made Pastor without this jurisdiction for whether it do agree to men as they are Pastors or as they are Prelats in the Church it cannot be avoided but that the Pastor should have it because though every Praesul or Pralatus be not a Pastor yet every Pastor is Pralatus in order to that Church where he is the proper and ordinary Pastor Yea when censure is the most sharp spirituall medicine it were ill with every Church if he who is resident alwayes among them as their spirituall Phisition should not have power in administring it Thirdly I say no Minister hath majority of power in applying the power of order or jurisdiction to this or that person In the application there is a ministery of the Church interposed but so that Christ onely is the cause with power not onely why Presbyters are in the Church but why Thomas or Iohn is chosen to and bestowed on this or that place A Master onely doth out of power take every servant into his house so God in his God did choose Aarons sonnes with the Levites and Christ the 70. not mediately leaving it to the arbitrement of any to set out those that should stand before him God doth ever onely in regard of authority apply all power Ecclesiasticall to every particular person his sole authority doth it though sometime as in ordinary callings the ministery of others doth concurre The Church is in setting out or ordaining this or that man as the Colledge is in choosing when she taketh the man whom the statute of her founder doth most manifestly describe or where the Kings mandate doth strictly injoyne it would otherwise bring an imperiall power into the Church For though many Kings cannot hinder but that there shall be such and such officers and places of government as are in their Kingdome yet while they are free at their pleasure to depute this or that man to the places vacant they have a Kingly jurisdiction in them Briefly God doth ever apply the power Ecclesiasticall unto the person sometime alone by himselfe as in the Apostles and then he doth it 〈◊〉 immâ—diaâ—iâ—â— suppositi quâ—m virtutis sometime the ministery of man concurring extraordinarily as when God extraordinarily directeth a person to goe and call one to this or that place as he did Saâ—â—el to anoint Saul Or else ordinarily when God doth by his Writ and Spirit guide men to take any to this or that place in his Church which he doth partly by his written statutes and partly by his Spirit and thus he doth make the application onely immediatione virtutis not suppositi Object But yet Bishops have the Churches and the care of them wholly committed to them though therefore Ministers have equall power to them yet they cannot without their leave have any place within their Churâ—hes and therefore are inferiour in as much as the people with whom they exercise their power of order and jurisdiction are assigned to them by the Bishop the proper Pastor of them This is an error likewise For God doth make no Minister to whom he doth not assigne a flocke which he mâ—y atâ—end God calleth Ministers not to a faculty of honour which doth qualifie them with power to ministerial actions if any give them persons among whom they may exercise their power received as the Emperours did make Chartulâ—rios judices who had a power to judge causes if any would subject himselfe to them Or as the Count Palatine hath ordinary Judges who are habitu tantum judices having none under them amongst whom they may exercise jurisdiction Or as the University giveth the degree of a Doctor in Physicke without any patients among whom he may practise But Gods Ministery is the calling of a man to an actuall administration Goe teach and the power of order if nothing by the way but a relative respect founded in this that I am called to such an actuall administration Now there cannot be an act commanded without the subject about which it is occupied otherwise God should give them a faculty of feeding and leave them depending on others for sheep to feed God should make them but remote potentiall Ministers and the Bishop actuall Thirdly the Holy Ghost is said to have set the Presbyters over theiâ— flocke A man taking a steward or other servant into his house doth give him a power of doing something to his family and never thinketh of taking servants further then the necessity of his houshold doth require so is it with God in his Church which is his house fore the exegency of his people so require he doth not call any to the function of Ministery Againe this is enough to ground the authority which Antichrist assumeth For some make his soveraignty to stand onely in this not that he giveth order or power of jurisdiction but that he giveth to all Pastors and Bishops the moity of sheepe on whom this their power is exercised Christ having given him the care of all his sheepe feed my sheepe so Vasquez Thus if a Bishop challenge all the sheepe in a Diocesan flocke to be his and that he hath power to assigne the severall flockes under him he doth usurpe an Antichristian authority Finally if the Churches be the Bishops through the Diocesse Ministers then are under them in their Churches but as a Curate is whom a Parson giveth leave to helpe within his Church Yea they should loose their right in their Churches when the Bishop dieth as a Curate doth when the Parson of this or that Church whom he assisted is once departed To conclude they are not dependant one Minister I meane on another in the exercise and use of their calling A servant that hath any place doth know from his Master what belongeth to it The Priests and Levites had set downe what belonged to their places as well as the high Priest what belonged to his Againe God hath described the Presbyters office as amply as any other A Legate dependeth on none for instructions but on him that sendeth him now every Minister is an Embassadour of Christ. By their reason a Minister should be accountant to man for what he did in his Ministery if his exercising of it did depend on man Then also should ministerâ—mediately onely serve God in as much as they have done this or that to which the bishop did direct them Moreover should the bishop bid him not preach at al preach rarely teach onely such and such things or come and live from his charge he should not sinne in obeying him But man cannot limit that power of ministery which he cannot give It is not with Gods servants in his Church as with civill servants in the Common-wealth for here some servants are above others whom they command as they will such as are called